The 'enemy' within

Hal Lindsey is the best-selling non-fiction writer alive today. Among his 20 books are "Late Great Planet Earth," his follow-up on that explosive best seller, "Planet Earth: The Final Chapter" and "Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad." He writes this weekly column exclusively for WorldNetDaily.

In our system of government, elections occur each year in November. Some years feature national balloting, but every year includes local and state elections. And I find election time each year to be a perfect occasion to stop and reflect on our progress, and sometimes, on our predicament.

This year, my reflection leads me to think that, as a nation, we’re in a bit of a predicament. We face a dazzling array of problems and challenges, few of which can be solved by politicians and initiatives, but all of which can be complicated and worsened by disastrous choices.

As you prepare to go to the polls this week, let me remind you of just a few of the issues that your vote will directly impact. Here are some things to keep in mind as you pull that lever, punch that card or mark that ballot.

Recently, a professor at Penn State University publicly stated that he wants to “eliminate the evil lunatics of the Christian right.” You see, those “evil lunatics” pose a challenge to his proposal to indoctrinate public school students about the advantages of a homosexual lifestyle.

Another professor, Peter Singer of Princeton University, is an advocate of euthanasia and infanticide. In an interview with the UK Independent, professor Singer affirmed that he would kill a disabled baby if it was “in the best interests of the baby and the family as a whole.

“Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion.” He’s apparently not bothered by the “slippery slope” implications of his logic.

Last year he wrote, “By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct.”

You may think it’s fortunate that these men are not government officials who wield a great deal of power. It is unfortunate, however, that they are educators who wield a great deal of influence – especially over students who may someday become legislators and activists.

Therein lies one of America’s greatest problems. Our children are being taught by instructors and teachers whose philosophies are often diametrically opposed to those of the general public. And slowly but surely, their destructive ideas are eating away at the very foundations of our society.

I saw this present academic situation developing firsthand. I worked with students during the turbulent days of the 1960s with an organization called Campus Crusade for Christ. I saw the impact of certain professors on the brilliant but radical students on several hundred college campuses. I predicted then that these would become the core of professors and teachers that would cause a quantum shift in the thinking of future generations.

Sometimes, their controlling influence can only be mitigated when the majority imposes its will through direct votes on propositions or by the election of legislators who will pass laws to stem their impact. Some of you will have that opportunity this week.

And speaking of the few who can arbitrarily affect the many, recently New Jersey’s state Supreme Court took a giant step toward redefining traditional marriage. It ordered the Legislature to give all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples.

It’s suppose to be up to the Legislature to decide how to do that, but homosexual-rights advocates are already demanding the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” Incidentally, this is the same court that ruled that the Boy Scouts of America had to accept open homosexuals as scoutmasters. That decision was ultimately overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

But this New Jersey decision may have far-reaching consequences because, unlike Massachusetts, New Jersey has no law banning marriages that would be illegal in another state. So gay couples from any state may soon be able to travel to New Jersey, get married and return home demanding recognition of their “legal” New Jersey marriage.

This is precisely why overwhelming majorities of citizens in 20 states have found it necessary to pass amendments preserving traditional marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Eight more states will make that decision this week. Also, that’s why many Americans are advocating a constitutional amendment affirming that definition of marriage.

If you’ve watched my television programs for very long, you’re aware that I think two of the last bastions of liberalism are education and the courts. The liberals have carried on the fight in these institutions because they cannot win the votes of the public at large. They’ve had to choose battlefields where they can achieve sweeping results by controlling only a few individuals, like judges and professors.

Of course, the third bastion that fits that formula is the media. I simply don’t have enough space in a short commentary to even begin to cite the myriad examples of manipulation of the truth for political purposes by the mainstream media. But let me give you just a couple of examples that have occurred recently.

I’m sure you’re aware of the controversy caused by Michael J. Fox’s recent television commercials. In those spots, he alleges that the two Senate candidates he opposes want to stop stem cell research and even criminalize the science. Though his personal situation is dire – and rightly evokes a great deal of sympathy – his allegations are entirely false and misleading.

Neither of the Senate candidates opposes stem cell research. What they do oppose is the use of unborn human embryos to supply those cells for research. And, more specifically, they oppose the use of federal money to purchase those embryos.

The proponents of embryonic stem cell research do not want you to know the following information. Contrary to what they say, embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. They’re angry that President Bush refuses to pick up the tab for the purchase of the research cells. He believes that your money should not be used for something that he – and many Americans – considers to be immoral, that is, the use of unborn fetuses for patently dubious research.

Recently, a leading stem cell researcher from MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, revealed that researchers have not been able to stop embryonic stem cells from causing tumors when injected into patients.

Professor James Sherley said that the “tumor formation property is an inherent feature of the cells.” He cautioned that the prospect of overcoming it is very far into the future. He explained that “although some might say we can solve the tumor problem down the road, that’s equivalent to saying we can solve the cancer problem, and we may, but that’s a long time coming.” Professor Sherley’s assertions have recently been confirmed by researchers at the University of Rochester and Harvard.

So the bottom line is, contrary to what the media tell you, embryonic stem cell research is not illegal, but it’s also not that promising. At best, it could only yield results after many years, perhaps even decades. It could not have helped Christopher Reeve or Michael J. Fox.

And because it’s not illegal, any number of left-leaning foundations or individuals could put up the money to purchase the embryos so that research can continue. But apparently, they don’t want to foot the bill themselves; they want you to do that. And they refuse to tell you about the fabulous results that have been achieved through the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord blood stem cells.

But then, those forms of stem cell research don’t further the ultimate objective of human cloning for organ harvesting.

If you get your information from the mainstream media as you prepare to vote, here are a couple of other things you haven’t heard.

A 40-year-old Christian immigrant from Honduras, who is a husband and father of two children, lost his job a few weeks ago. Luis Padilla was fired for allegedly harassing fellow employees at a Cargill plant in Timberville, Va.

His offense? He posted two benign signs inside his pick-up truck, which was sitting on the company parking lot. The signs encouraged voters to support a proposed marriage protection amendment on the Virginia ballot this week. Three employees complained. Although he attempted to meet the company’s demands, he was eventually fired for “insubordination.” If his signs had supported gay or abortion-rights legislation, he’d probably still be employed today.

The media didn’t report this because it’s a blatant example of the radical left attempting to intimidate and silence men and women of faith.

Of course, they also didn’t report on the churches in Wisconsin and Montana that are being investigated and facing fines for supporting marriage amendments in those states.

And you won’t hear America’s fifth column telling you that our nation’s economy is the strongest it’s been in years – maybe even decades. The Dow is at an all-time high – over 12,000. Unemployment is very low, 4.6 percent. The tax cuts have boosted the treasury receipts and the federal deficit is down.

Gas prices are down and inflation is in check. But that’s good news, and this close to the election, good news helps the incumbent. So it’s important for Big Media to “talk the economy down.”

A yearlong study by the Business and Media Institute found that news reports about the American economy have been grossly distorted. There have been twice as many negative stories as positive ones. Also, the negative reports are often aired in full-length segments. The positive stories get only a brief mention.

The worst offender of the Big Three? CBS! Fully 80 percent of its reporting on the economy was negative. And that’s why, contrary to the evidence, more than 50 percent of Americans feel that the state of the U.S. economy is “poor.”

And last but not least, you may be surprised to learn that this last bastion of liberal influence is guilty of a double standard. As the Mark Foley feeding frenzy unfolded across America’s newspapers and TV screens, an organization called the Media Research Center did some investigating.

It compared the Mark Foley scandal with a similar scandal from 1994. In that one, a member of Congress was indicted and convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault against a minor, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. The indictment and conviction on those very serious charges generated a total of 19 news stories by ABC, CBS and NBC.

On the other hand, former Rep. Mark Foley, who has not even been indicted, much less convicted in a court of law, as of two weeks ago had been the subject of 152 stories on those networks – 152 to 19.

What could possibly justify such a wild discrepancy? Could it be the fact that Mark Foley is a Republican while former Rep. Mel Reynolds was a Democrat? Could Big Media’s left-wing ideology explain the lopsided coverage? You decide.

And finally, as we prepare to cast our ballots this Tuesday, one more critical issue that your vote can influence. A Homeland Security subcommittee of the House of Representatives recently released a report that paints a dire picture of the situation on America’s southern border. It warned that there is a growing collection of violent gangs, alien-smuggling networks, drug cartels and terrorist sympathizers who are seeking to exploit our porous borders.

Among other findings, the report said that in 2005, 650 illegal aliens from “special interest countries” were apprehended on the border. “Special interest countries” means states that sponsor or support terrorism. And if we caught 650, imagine how many actually made it through!

The report noted that members of Hezbollah have been smuggled across the border. It also warned that Venezuela is “emerging as a hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere.”

The federal government’s primary obligation is to protect the American people. It’s obvious to me that we need to send people to Washington who will keep up the pressure on the administration to stem the flow of illegal – and dangerous – immigrants into our nation.

Mexican officials may protest and take their case to the United Nations. Let them! Contrary to what they say, a border fence is not equivalent to the Berlin Wall. We’re not keeping anyone in; we’re keeping the terrorists out.

So you see, there are lots of issues to consider as we face Election Day 2006. Study them carefully. Then fulfill your obligation as a citizen. Vote! Just do it!